What are the advantages of ‘organic’ foods?
David Miliband recently said "there isn’t any evidence either way that’s conclusive" as to the health benefits of 'organic' foods, which was picked up on by much of the media. It seems to be something people feel very strongly about, and 'organic' foods are now pretty much synonymous with 'healthy eating' in day to day life. It's all rather strange, though. The more I see about the 'organic' industry, the more it seems to mix reasonable arguments about sensible farming methods with scaremongering, plus more than a hint of anti-science sentiment and outright paranoia.
My friend Lil is the most knowledgeable person I know when it comes to environmental issues, and after I commented on her post on the organic industry she sent over a report detailing the many advantages of organic farming as regards wildlife conservation. From a lay-person's perspective it seemed compelling, and I trust Lil and her environmental science degree when she tells me it makes sense 
I also know people who swear organic foods taste better, and it's entirely possible they do, although there are plenty of variables and biases and it's hard to find double-blind taste tests with evidence either way. That's being incredibly picky, though, and if these positive points were all 'organic' meant I'd have no problem with it and would be happy to pay extra.
Unfortunately, 'organic' comes with a load of baggage attached, the most prevalent of which is the assumed evil of fertilisers and their associated health risks. The industry regularly points out the levels of pesticides found in 'conventional' foods, and plenty of people have said to me things like 'I don't see how they can't be bad for you'. Industry responses to David Miliband are the same:
Pete Glanville, secretary of the Shetland Organic Producers Group, which farms vegetables and sheep, said: "You only have to look at the list of things that goes into creating lots of things to realise just how much we are not putting into our bodies by eating organic."
Liz Lawrence, from the website faceofflowers.com, which specialises in organic produce said: "Organic produce is the only legally guaranteed food that you know what you're getting, you know there's no chemicals in there.
"To sell organic produce you have to be registered and you're inspected very thoroughly."
They both want me to assume that 'chemicals' are bad for my health. But, why should I? It's not like this hasn't occurred to people before, and been studied appropriately. I'm going to trust the reports of the European Food Safety Authority and DEFRA far more than I am the vague gut instincts that admittedly arise when I hear that food has been sprayed with chemicals designed to keep away pests. Pesticides are heavily regulated and subject to continual testing and safety review, and I've seen nothing from the 'organic' industry giving me any reason to ignore the results of proper inquiry other than 'some pesticides might turn out to be bad for you'.
You could perhaps make a case that if 'organic' foods have no risk from pesticides, and 'conventional' has only a very small one, it's still more reasonable to go with the former. However, 'organic' farming can still use pesticides, only they have to be 'natural'. There's no reason 'natural' pesticides should be any better for the environment than 'synthetic' pesticides1, and they are just as heavily regulated, yet we don't hear how much 'natural' pesticide residue is left on organic foods. And then there's this, from a report by a University of Edinburgh biochemist:
Plants synthesise an estimated 10,000 chemicals whose function is to kill or deter insect pests and occasionally larger herbivores. These natural pesticides are found in all fruit and vegetables; when tested at MTD they prove to be equally as damaging as synthetic pesticides (Ames and Gold, 1999, 2000). Furthermore the daily consumption of natural pesticides or carcinogens outweighs the traces of synthetic pesticides consumed by the public by many thousands to one. Mankind has always been exposed to ‘‘dangerous’’ chemicals and since many current crops have only recently been used as food and are also the result of extensive plant breeding, the kinds of natural chemical to which we are now exposed is too recent to allow for biological evolution to have ensured safe consumption (Ames and Gold, 1999).
The pesticide issue feels like scaremongering, and I don't think it helps anyone to idly discard the extensive scientific knowledge of this area in favour of gut reactions. 'Organic' foods also trumpet the lack of genetic modification, which is equally dubious in my view, but that's a whole other post. I'm loathe to give money to an industry that promotes and possibly thrives on these attitudes, which is to the detriment of the probably beneficial environmental aspects.
I've been trying to read up on the subject, and there are a crazy number of variables. Supporting local farms may be considered an advantage, but if you buy from a supermarket it's estimated that 70% of food labelled 'organic' is flown in from abroad, which must have environmental consequences. It's also claimed that 'organic' farms treat their animals better than 'conventional' farms, which sounds good, and that they aren't given growth hormones which are also apparently bad for humans - I haven't even tried to dig into this claim. There are so many pros, cons, claims and counter-claims that I don't know how anybody could reasonably decide whether it's worth the extra cost.
It's all a little murky, and at times has an air of cash cow while throwing up red flags of pseudoscience. I'd much rather buy something with a specific advantage in the same way as free-range eggs than risk supporting goofy nonsense, but then I feel like the positive aspects are going unrewarded. Lil says that it's the specific management criteria of the farms that's important in terms of environmental impact, not 'organic' versus 'conventional', and that seems to be one of the few sensible conclusions it's possible to draw.
(edit: tidied up a couple of dodgy constructions)
- possibly less so, given that synthetic ones will be designed for a purpose, but admittedly I can't back this up [↩]
Hello!
Hey, thanks for coming! I'm Andrew, and this is where my headthinks come to breed. They often meander around humanism and photography, but they're flighty and you can't trust them, so anything is possible.
Do feel free to email me - I get lonely:
Your hair looks swish, by the way - have you done something new?
Recent Comments
- vicky: going up this weekend having done all the welsh peaks except 4 snowdon, cant wait
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: what, how can u live in the 21 c and say that, probably a sexist thing
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: da iawn laura, cant believe what im hearing, all this fuss, anyway love the site, and i agree, normal people who swear and curse clomb mountains cos we live in the...
on Climbing Snowdon. - Andrew: Did a few quick test shots to check the light levels, then balanced the camera on the arm of a bench, set it for a 20s exposure and hoped for the best
on ISS. - lynsey: Wow, how did you take that photograph?
on ISS.
January 10th, 2007 - 12:45
The real issue with pesticides and fertilisers is the oil required to produce them. Organic agriculture is vastly superior in terms of its ecological footprint, requiring much less energy.
Nevermind the media-led waffle about health risks, climate change and peak oil are reasons enough to promote organic agriculture where it is appropriate!
January 10th, 2007 - 21:55
That’s one I hadn’t seen. I can’t find much info online – do pesticides really use that much oil, relative to the rest of the UK? I can appreciate that every little helps, but I have a hard time believing it would make much difference relative to petrol etc….
January 10th, 2007 - 22:08
One of the main points of my post was ignore all the health stuff. With the current status of farming, the (definite) environmental benefits are a more-than-adequate reason to support organic food.
Organic farming originated as a response to the shift to modern intensive farming (and the associated wide-ranging environmental impacts). The procedures used in organic farming are all principally to do with environmental benefits (pesticides are only used as a last resort). Just because people have latched on to possible health benefits doesn’t mean you should reject the whole system (although if there are any health benefits, I’ll be sorted
..).
Specific farm management techniques are definitely the key in terms of impacts on wildlife (I’ve seen the proof in real life), but will only work if enough farms take part, to provide large, connected habitats. At the moment, supporting organic farms is still the best option – I’m willing Defra to get their environmental stewardship schemes right, but it’s not all going according to plan yet. Also, there are other issues such as watercourse contamination and soil quality to consider.
In terms of animal welfare – Defra says: “…intensive pig and poultry units are not permitted in organic farming. This means that organic systems avoid the large-scale production units with a heavy reliance on imported feed and limited land on which to spread the manure (Table 1.6). For poultry, the UKROFS state that poultry must be reared in open-range conditions and cannot be kept in cages… Also, all mammals (i.e. including pigs) must have access to pasturage or an open-air exercise area or an open-air run which may be partially covered”
Choosing food can indeed be a hideously complicated process – particularly as large companies are now buying into the whole ‘organic’ thing. If people care about animal welfare, environment etc. the best way of covering as many factors as possible is probably to support small, local farms (through farm shops and farmers’ markets). And get an organic vegetable box delivered
January 10th, 2007 - 22:22
Yes, I did pick up on that – I just wanted to point out the problems with the whole health angle in a post here. I can appreciate that these dubious claims aren’t enough to reject it outright, but I’d still like to know how they justify the anti-GM aspect. They could grow larger yields of ‘naturally’ pest-resistant crops with GM techniques (after appropriate testing, of course), but it’s rejected outright. I feel uncomfortable supporting this kind of hysteria, but I can see it’s a matter of weighing the pros and cons. Still, small, local farms sound like a much better bet to me
January 10th, 2007 - 23:09
The hysteria will go on whether people buy organic or not, but biodiversity will continue to decline if they don’t. But yes, small and local is a good thing too =)
Indeed, I think genetic engineering is a rather major campaign victim (as proof, “GM” is actually a media mistake, everything is genetically modified – unfortunately the phrase has now stuck =P..). I definitely support it as a principle. If managed properly (ie. not all about the profits), it could have a whole range of fabulous applications, and many of the negative impacts (such as gene transfer into weeds, or “terminator genes” affecting poor farmers) would be avoided/minimised. However, there are still associated risks (beyond “argh frankenfood will kill us all” I mean), so it needs careful management.
There was a good long-term scientific trial of GM crops in the UK a couple of years back – I’ll have to look up the details.
In terms of GM and organic specifically, I think it’s because pesticide/herbicide-resistant crops are a major focus of GM, hence encouraging increased use of pesticides and broad spectrum herbicides. The main pest-resistant crop type is Bt, and several pest species have shown resistance to it.
January 11th, 2007 - 00:55
I understand your scepticism with regards to this issue and frequently have to ask many of my friends to hold out their eco-friendly palms as I hand them a plate full of their own ass with regard to the debate on ‘GM foods’. It’s actually quite terrifying just how many individuals buy organic food based on little more than ‘well it’s better for the environment’. Oh really? Why is that? No answer. What’s more any sources you cite fall by the wayside with comments along the lines of ‘how can it not be better?’, ‘my eco fascist friend told me THIS’ and my favourite (and I’m going full scarecrow here) ‘I am someone who cares so much about the world and everyone in it that I would rather subscribe to what is seen by the majority as environmentally sympathetic rather than look at the evidence and counter-arguments’.
Another argument which i happen to think is quite acceptable is that people don’t give a shit and shouldn’t have to. I can sympathise with that even though I do not subscribe to it. If someone doesn’t recycle, it’s not because they don’t know about it’s existence, it’s because they don’t care enough. Who am I to judge them? We each have areas of our life in which we could be more concerned. Go ahead and eat your organic food with a plastic fork, go ahead and shop fairtrade in your gap sweater but do NOT lecture those not following suit, because they very well may know more about it than you do.
January 11th, 2007 - 22:08
Paroxysm, I agree with what you’re saying about people being able to back up the things they’re supporting, beyond what they read in the papers. But in the case of organic farming techniques, the environmental benefits are definitely supported by extensive scientific research (habitat management is an area of particular interest to me, and my knowledge is based on a lot of time reviewing primary information sources, and experience of working on farms and observing the effects of different farm management techniques).
I agree that it’s down to the individual to decide whether to do anything about it. There’s no way anyone can support all the different causes in the world! But don’t reject something just because a few people don’t have enough evidence to hand to back up what they’re saying.
January 11th, 2007 - 23:49
Your research is well founded and duly noted Lil. How do you feel about the people in our society who simply do not care about the situation. A good example is the melting of the ice caps and the dying out of the polar bear (what with no ice shelves to hunt etc). Yet the fact remains that even though Al Gore is playing ball and getting the message out to the wider public,I’ll wager the polar bear will be extinct in two hundred years or sooner. People just don’t care enough until it’s at their doorstep. This frustrates many individuals because they cannot understand why people would allow such a thing to happen, but they do and always will.
This of course doesn’t mean you should not do your part for the cause but does it it not frighten you sometimes that perhaps the rest of the world do not subscribe to the same beliefs? I know I can identify with the apathetic attitude and sometimes even would go so far as to be what is reprimanded as ‘selfish’. Yet there is a liberating and exhilarating feeling for me and many others in simply consuming. Drinking Coca Cola, eating McDonalds etc. with no regard for anyone but Mr. Appetite.
And I hear people asking what those contingency methods are going to be when the fabled apocalypse finally arrives at our doorstep. Truth is I don’t know but I have faith in the resourcefulness of humans in times of pressure and genuinely believe that when it time, the species will pull back from the brink. Not very good news for the polar bears-but Coca Cola for us in the meantime.
Yes yes I know this is ‘inconsiderate’ and ‘selfish’ but these moral judgements don’t mean much to those who have decided to practice such a lifestyle because they are much more hermeneutically aware than that. They know of the consequences and they know that the moral framework will label them selfish…but if the majority of society is acting similarly, such outdated modes of judgement do not count one jot.